Talk:Borg history/archive
Seven of Nine references This page generally needs work to include various data points mentioned by Seven of Nine throughout Star Trek: Voyager. Specifically, the section on the Hansens and the ought to be double-checked by someone with access to the relevant Voyager episodes: I noticed that the article Seven of Nine says she was assimilated in 2356, but Erin Hansen says it was 2354. Someone who has a copy of and/or should find out which is correct and fix whichever entry is wrong. --Josiah Rowe 23:35, 11 Mar 2005 (GMT) List by dates? I'd like to see this set up with a nice and clean 'list by dates' in the style of Ferengi history. Jaf 17:57, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)Jaf Ktarian? In the 2354-2356 section of this article it lists a Katarian male drone. Should that be Ktarian and if so, does anyone have a pic and/or the script reference? It could be helpful with the inconsistencies of Ktarian appearence. Jaf 01:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Jaf :You're right. It is Ktarian in stead off Katarian. It was difficult to understand while Erin spoke it and I did'nt know the correct spelling. A transcript of the episode listed Ktarian. I already changed it. -- Q 08:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Brunali What are the dates given for the Brunali homeworld attacks? I don't have immediate access to the episode, but that should give us a few more years for this list. It may also shed some light on how long the Borg were using the transwarp hubs. Jaf 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Jaf Conflict or Conflicts I'm confused here- the title seems to suggest a single, continuous conflict spanning centuries- but the Borg and the Federation were not engaged in combat continuously since 2063. The "2153 incident" doesn't even involve the Federation, but it is included here. An incident here and incident there does not make for a continuous conflict. The title should probably be "Human-Borg history" since that's really who it involves, if we want an article like this.--31dot 02:31, June 29, 2010 (UTC) :I see no problem with changing to that title, since that seems to be the direction I'm going with this article. Feel free. --Nero210 02:45, June 29, 2010 (UTC) From Voyager-Borg conflict References Missing references: * * * * Necessity of this Page I know I'm hardly one to talk considering the hits I took when I wrote the Voyager-Kazon conflict article, but in this case I don't think we need this particular article. Voyager's dealings with the Borg could be taken as an extension of the conflict the Federation already had with the Borg since and as such I think this article would be better suited in that manner. --Nero210 19:13, June 26, 2010 (UTC) :I would tend to agree, if we're going to have this, it should cover all Federation-Borg conflicts. - 13:09, June 27, 2010 (UTC) ::This is about Voyager s conflict while it is lost in the Delta Quadrant not the Federation's conflict. Make a new page called Federation-Borg conflict.--TyphussJediVader 13:41, June 27, 2010 (UTC) Calm down Mr. Defensive. Voyager was just another front in the Federation's conflict with the Borg. Voyager didn't loose its status as a Federation ship when it got stuck in the Delta Quadrant, therefore having this article cover the entire Federation-Borg conflict is appropriate. Voyager would have a pretty big section however. --Nero210 16:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Borg not Borgs.--TyphussJediVader 22:43, June 27, 2010 (UTC) :::If Nero wants to continue his crusade to rework all Voyager articles, I would suggest he make a mock-up of the proposed Federation-Borg Conflict page as a sub-page to his user profile and have a link here so that everyone can vet it before it is posted for all to see. I like your gumption, but you are coming off as pretty arrogant that "your way is the best way." Let us all help and it will be the best piece of work that can be put on here (that goes for all articles).--Obey the Fist!! 15:18, June 28, 2010 (UTC) :Considering that his page is just a brief of "Scorpion" (I & II) right now, I don't think a user subpage would be needed. Simply adding the non-''Voyager'' info to the article, which would all be before the current stuff, should be enough to see if that works. Also, I have no idea what the "Borg not Borgs" comment means. - 16:40, June 28, 2010 (UTC) Merge I put this up for a merge with Human-Borg history, since I agree that having a single page to cover (and point to more in depth articles) is a good idea, but I don't think we need two pages to do that. - 04:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC) :Support. --Nero210 05:30, June 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Support. Borgs not Bjorgs--Obey the Fist!! 12:40, June 29, 2010 (UTC) :::I'm not sold on the merge. This isn't part of a Human-Borg conflict this is a Federation-Borg conflict and the Human-Borg conflict developed into the Federation-Borg conflict. What's missing from this article is more information on the conflict between Voyager itself and the Borg. — Morder (talk) 03:09, June 30, 2010 (UTC) I would say your first sentence is also the very reason for the merge. Either way, this seems more like an essay on Seven of Nine then about anything else at this moment. - 22:17, June 30, 2010 (UTC) :::My first sentence being that I'm not sold on the merge?! :) Agreed on what it currently is which is why it should probably just get a pna-inaccurate for now. If another page develops into a general "Borg-everybody conflict" then we can merge them all. Until they do this particular page should deal with voyager and the borg and not doesn't belong on human-borg history, yet. — Morder (talk) 13:11, July 1, 2010 (UTC) As the originator of this article, although this is an open article i would like to say my sole intention at first of creating this article was to begin a detail analysis into the Borg-Voyager relationship and a Borg-federation conflict rather then a Borg-human conflict, thank you.-Four of Five ::::Keep in mind that this site is not for original research or analysis of aspects of Star Trek. We are only here to document either in-universe aspects of the Star Trek universe or production information. If you simply want to have the information in one place, that is fine, as people seem to agree on that, but it shouldn't be as any sort of research.--31dot 14:35, July 2, 2010 (UTC) I understand, i was not trying to imply for research into the subject, i was simply trying to encourage more contribution into the field, thank you. --Four of Five :::::If I could through my two cents in here? I support merge idea for the reason that I personally do not feel that an article on Voyager's encounters with the Borg warrant a separate page when all the information could be readily inserted into the Human-Borg conflict article. Perhaps having its own section in that article would be more fitting? -- TrekFan Talk 22:55, October 30, 2010 (UTC) Sidebar Cleanup Once this page get's moved, I would suggest a look at the sidebar. There have to be losses for Voyager as crewmen and women were assimiliated or killed during the conflicts with the Borg. Also, am I mistaken that Voyager was not the only one to fight the Borg? Didn't they enlist other races help?--Obey the Fist!! 12:49, June 29, 2010 (UTC) They did indeed, do u remember Unimatrix zero. hi Im the person who created Voyager-Borg conflict so if any discussions or decisions are made concerning the article please contact me about it, thanks:) :While we thank you for creating the article, oh unnamed contributor from beyond the stars, I would like to remind you that this is a wiki and therefore, can be edited by anyone at any time. I would say that you can track ALL of your created pages just as you found this one.--Obey the Fist!! 14:13, June 29, 2010 (UTC) However I would like editors to help me assimilate unwritten information into the article freely. --Four of Five 23:01, June 30, 2010 (UTC)Four of Five From Federation-Borg War Merge Same reasons as Voyager-Borg conflict. - 06:23, May 12, 2011 (UTC) :I disagree with the merge. Each war on MA has a separate article even if its just a small blurb like the Tzenkethi war. Any conflicts prior to the war are listed separately. eg. Dominion cold war vs. hot war, Klingon cold war vs. hot war. The human-borg history article is more like a cold war article. It wasn't explicitly stated in dialogue that the Federation was at war with Borg until the Best of Both Worlds Part 1 Robert DeSoto 07:42, May 12, 2011 (UTC) ::Support merge. It was not one, continuous conflict, and we have articles on the battles already (Battle of Wolf 359 and Battle of Sector 001) which means that a summary of incidents between the UFP and the Borg should not be described as a war(which they aren't at the proposed merge target) --31dot 10:38, May 12, 2011 (UTC) :It was not a continuous conflict, nonetheless, it was still described as a war, on screen. It was stated by Hanson, Troi, Picard, and even Dr. Crusher who was opposed against using Hugh as a weapon from the start. It may not seem like a war considering how far apart the two powers are, but that is what's stated on screen. Should we ignore all that dialogue? In that case, the two other articles should be merged here, and this brought up to MA standards. - 23:14, May 12, 2011 (UTC) ::We don't have to ignore anything, but we also don't need to create new articles when we have perfectly good ones which cover the non-continuous events and one which summarizes all Human-Borg history already.--31dot 01:08, May 13, 2011 (UTC) :I initially disagreed with the merge because all the other Federation conflicts on MA were separated between pre-war conflicts (listed as cold war articles) and the actual hot war articles. But I suppose Voyager's conflict with the Borg could be included since it takes place after the war started in The Best of Both Worlds. And there has been no peace declared. The battle in ENT: Regeneration, I suppose could also be argued as an extension of the war since they were the drones from First Contact. The only section that is kinda iffy is the Hanson research expedition. That has nothing to do with the conflict but I guess it could thrown in the Prelude section if anything. But I think the title should preserve the fact that this was a war and not a bunch of random isolated clashes. VOY didn't really emphasize that fact since they just wanted to go home, but TNG made it very clear that it was considered a war. That's something that the existing MA articles don't really discuss, but I think it should Robert DeSoto 02:34, May 13, 2011 (UTC) "There's been no formal declaration of war." - Beverly Crusher, . - 06:27, May 13, 2011 (UTC) :"Not from us, but the Borg have declared their intention to assimilate us and our way of life." - Troi. Then the next scene, Crusher reluctantly concedes :"Yes yes, I know. We're at war." - Crusher. and btw, can you explain what is missing from the formatting? I tried reading the manual of style, I don't see anything that's obvious :Robert DeSoto 06:40, May 13, 2011 (UTC) ::Re your 2:34 post: If that's the case, (still not convinced) then the Human-Borg history article should simply be renamed to this through merging.--31dot 08:59, May 13, 2011 (UTC) Just because the crew of the Enterprise-D decided to proceed as if they were at war doesn't mean it was a one. That's like saying the Federation and the Cardassian Union were at war for the few days because Benjamin Maxwell and the crew of the USS Phoenix decided to act that way. It can be noted in the history article that members of Starfleet considered it a war, but without something to suggest there was a formal declaration, we shouldn't call it a war. Starfleet is not the Federation. - 19:46, May 17, 2011 (UTC) : Nobody in "The Wounded" ever stated "we are in a state of war", like it was said repeatedly in "The Best of Both Worlds" and "I, Borg". And Admiral Hanson (who also considered it a war) is not part of the Enterprise crew. In fact it was clearly stated in "The Wounded" that Maxwell brought the Federation to the "brink of war", meaning they are not yet at war. There was no formal declaration of war against the Dominion either. Starfleet wanted the element of surprise when they attacked Torros III so of course they are not going to give them a formal declaration so they have time to prepare their defenses. And only the DS9 crew and the Rotarran crew said they were at war. Maybe a couple other crews. But Starfleet and the Klingon Defense Force isnt the Federation. So are you gonna tell me the Dominion war isn't canon either? Maybe you should rewatch a few of these episodes. btw you still havent explained what I need to fix the formatting Robert DeSoto 06:20, May 18, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, nobody ever said there was a war going on in DS9 after "Call to Arms", you really got me there. What we do have on this "war" is one mention to a "state of war" while there's and incursion going on in , something we know doesn't mean there's a W'''ar going on, since it happens every few years anyway, like , , , , , , etc. In , there is again only one reference, with Picard being called a "casualty of war", which again, is said during an incursion by a guy about to fight a battle, so what else is he suppose to call him? A casualty of a minor skirmish before what people will remember? Nothing there even comes close to suggesting there is more then the event going on right then, and we know from other episodes that the '''Federation never used the time after that to declare war on the Borg. They don't even use the word war for what happened, it's all "the Borg incident" and "the Borg scare". There are undeclared "wars" in the real world given more respect then that, like that little Vietnam "incident". Not calling something a war when it is one is like calling the War of 1812 a minor scuffle between the US and Brittan, which it actually was considering how it turned out, but it's still called a W'ar because it was one. In , which doesn't have a comma in it right on screen, we have a discussion about how to treat a captured member of a species known to be hostile. Riker wouldn't have to "..agree, we're at war.''" if there was an actual war going on. The whole discussion would be moot if there was. We do have the quote I mentioned above about there being no formal declaration, which closes the matter right there for the '''Federation, but since you can't accept that because no one here is capable of watching these episodes and coming to a different conclusion then you, we have Beverly's line that "I know, I know. We're at war." This is clearly her agreeing with the war and not her forgoing an argument because she's under orders from the captain who has chosen to act in that manner, right? Somebody should have taken Picard out back and shot him as a traitor when he let Hugh go unharmed, since they were at W'ar! Janeway too for that matter, since she did all that palling around with them in . In fact, after "I Borg" there isn't a single mention of any "'W'ar" with the Borg, or even a "war" for that matter. You would think there would be because the word war was thrown around a lot in those episodes, we even need a "Janeway-Chakotay War" page due to the dialog. Don't forget the "''Federation-Species 8472 War", since Janeway speaks for hundreds of planets on policy now. Sounds like there isn't a war going on with the Borg at all, just everybody else around them. All this is is some cyborgs that happen to show up every few years and try to assimilate Earth. Hell, the second time around it seems they only tried for Earth, and since everyone who's used the word war describing them is at least part Human, it would be more accurate to call this a '''Human-Borg War, since we're in the business of making things up now. As for the formatting, sulfur already did most of it, but this still needs links added since you mention a lot of things without one. - 07:28, May 18, 2011 (UTC) : I never said that nobody mentioned "war" after Call to Arms. I have no idea where you got that from. So a "state of war" is not really a war? Then what it is exactly? And I don't see how it happens every few years. The Wounded, The Die is Cast, The Enterprise Incident, they were brought to the brink of war, not an actual war. :You're right there is some debate between Crusher and the rest of the crew about whether or not they are at war. But in the end, the majority concluded that yes, they're at war. So we are just supposed to ignore that? So what if other episodes refer to it as the "Borg Incident"? You don't refer to 9/11 incident as the "war against terror", that doesn't meant it's not related to a greater conflict. :And yes, Picard was reprimanded by Admiral Nechayev for being a "traitor" as you would call it. She explicitly ordered him to take advantage of any future opportunities to destroy the Borg. Something that would be consistent with a state of war. :As for your last paragraph about Janeway-Chakotay war, I'm not even gonna bother. You're obviously losing it now. Robert DeSoto 15:03, May 18, 2011 (UTC) - definition number one - "...with or '''without' a real armed conflict''". There is no W'''ar here, never was, and you missed the point entirely. Picard ''isn't'' a traitor because there was no war. He just pissed off Nechayev, which is what he should be doing, since her job is to be wrong all the time. - 08:04, May 19, 2011 (UTC) :::Even without looking at the potential semantic differences between wars and Wars, what still hasn't been answered is the question 31dot brought up a week ago: If, as even the introduction of this article admits, the whole period of contact between the Borg and individual member planets of the Federation is what is called the "Federation-Borg War", then why exactly is it necessary to have two articles about the same topic? Please explain, to convince me of not '''supporting this merge. -- Cid Highwind 08:52, May 19, 2011 (UTC) :@Archduk3 - I'm glad you looked it up. So even if there is no real conflict between the battle of Wolf 359 and the battle of Sector 0001, a state of war could exist, couldn't it? And I don't see what Nechayev did or said that was so wrong. Picard's duty is to defend the security of the Federation, not to wrestle with his conscience. Picard himself admitted that letting Hugh go may have been the wrong decision to make. We can debate this forever but the fact of the matter is, there is dialogue that specifically says the Federation is at war. There is nothing explicit that says there is no war. btw I like Nechayev. Shes a bitch but she gets shit done. Putting Jellico in charge of the Cardassian negotiations was a good move. But that's an entirely different topic. I just wanted to point out that she isn't always wrong. Robert DeSoto 05:47, May 21, 2011 (UTC) :@Cid Highwind - I said I'm no longer opposed to merging the articles. Only that I think the term war should be preserved. Robert DeSoto 05:47, May 21, 2011 (UTC) :::But if two articles are merged, it only sounds sensible to use the "more generic" title instead of the "more specific" one for the resulting article - especially if the specific title is also somewhat controversial. -- Cid Highwind 15:39, May 21, 2011 (UTC) :@Cid Highwind - I don't think human-borg history is a good title because it's inconsistent with other MA articles. If we have a human-borg history then why is there is no human-Klingon history, no human-Dominion history etc? Then you also have to have Klingon-Dominion history, Klingon-Romulan history etc. There would be no end. I think just having articles on the individual wars is good enough. As for the controversy, it was pretty explicit that the Federation was in a "state of war", in the Best of Both Worlds. There was no debate. As soon as Troi said it, Riker had no argument. The only controversy was whether the Federation was still at war in I Borg because Crusher had reservations. She eventually conceded they're at war but still objected to the plan because there are rules in war. If you listen to the debate again, it is a pretty convincing case that they were still at war. Whether or not you think its appropriate to use a free being to commit genocide is open to debate, but not the fact that they were at war. If you are still not convinced, watch the episode again and imagine they are talking about the United States and terrorism. Is the US constantly engaged in massive battles like in WW2? No. Was there a formal declaration of war? No. But I think most Americans would agree the US is at war with terrorists. Like the Borg, they've made their intentions clear to end the American way of life. Imagine if terrorists destroyed 39 American warships and almost landed troops in the American capital. Is there a single American that would not consider that an act of war? :::Yeah, and most of the rest of the world would agree that "War on Terror" is a pretty catchphrase for a number of police actions at best, and a shady euphemism at worst - but we're not talking about real-world politics here. :::One valid point regarding this so-called "Federation-Borg War" is that it is neither a "War", nor a single chain of events, nor something that involved the whole Federation - and, at the same time, that if the merge suggestion you no longer disagree with goes through, the merged article would no longer be one about just these 24th century Borg incursions and, as such, shouldn't have a title that concentrates on that. If this article gets merged to a bigger "history article", then the result should of course be called a "history article" - and if you don't like the "Human-Borg" part of it, you could start a discussion about that on the target page. :::If, however, you no longer want this article to be merged, there's still the issue of calling a non-war a "War" - why not try finding something that doesn't pretend to be an official title? For example, a purely descriptive title could simply be Borg incursions or, if necessary, qualified as Borg incursions (24th century), Borg incursions (Earth), Borg incursions (Federation space) etc. -- Cid Highwind 10:55, May 22, 2011 (UTC) First, the attempt to draw a parallel between the Borg and terrorists is ill informed at best, and once again completely ignores the fact that it was plainly stated there was "no formal declaration of war.". Second, as a US citizen, you can't have a War without a formal declaration from Congress. You can call it whatever the hell you want, but it isn't a War. At best, it will only ever be a war because everybody calls it that, and we know in Trek that everybody doesn't call the Borg incursions towards Earth a war. As for the "need" to create catch all conflict articles beyond the history article, why would we want an unnecessary step between Human-Borg history and articles like Battle of Wolf 359 that will only rehash information covered on the levels above and below it? Are we so bereft for articles that we need to outright duplicate information to create them? What would we gain with such half steps beyond a more complicated and difficult to follow web? - 08:39, May 23, 2011 (UTC) : There was no official declaration of war against the Dominion either. But "everybody" calls it a war so its I guess its ok. But its not ok for the war on terror? What about the Korean war? Vietnam? As a US citizen I guess you can't call it a war without Congressional approval eh? I'd love to see you tell some vets from Iraq that the US isnt really at war. Then watch them kick your ass LOL Robert DeSoto 04:10, June 11, 2011 (UTC) :::: Is it just me, or does it seem that the comparison with the US and the armed conflicts we've been in for the last decade is becoming a bit to personal for some. I also think its wise to not quote how most Americans would think or what some people might do because you simply do not know, and guess work is not helpful in a discussion. -- OvBacon(Talk) 05:40, June 11, 2011 (UTC) :I just restored the title back. Whatever your opinions are against calling this a war, the fact is, there is no explicit dialogue saying there isn't a war. And it has been stated explicitly more than once that a war exists. You can't pick and choose your own canon and ignore dialogue based on your own opinion. There is evidence for a war, there is none against. And interestingly enough, so far everyone at the trekbbs seems to agree with me. http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=143489 Robert DeSoto 04:39, June 16, 2011 (UTC) ..and I moved it back and locked it, because your opinion, wrong as it is, and trekbbs does not change MA policy and procedure. - 04:46, June 16, 2011 (UTC) :And who made you the judge of that? It's not just my opinion, its the opinion of the TNG crew which is stated with on screen dialogue. But no, you know better than the crew, ok fine. So I randomly ask a bunch of other Trek fans at the biggest available forum and they also all agree with the TNG crew. So let me ask you, what makes you think you know better than both the on screen characters and real life fans? Do you own this forum? Or is it cuz you have more edits than me? Look, I'm sorry I don't time to edit memory alpha 24/7 like you do. I have a life. But just cuz I'm not some loner living in my mama's basement doesn't mean my opinion is worth any less. Robert DeSoto 05:03, June 16, 2011 (UTC) ::::I have no doubt that you (Robert DeSoto) are as big a fan of star trek as we all are. And I can even understand that you could possibly get a little annoyed with some people from time to time, as MA editors can sometimes state their opinion a little firm or to blunt etc. But what I think you don't understand is that by attacking him or anyone else personally you loose all credibility. In a discussion like this its good to display you arguments and its even fine to add some additional arguments along the way... but to keep saying the same thing over and over and then resorting to unverifiable generalities like "most fans think this" or "the people of the US think this" etc etc, is not helping to make your point. By doing these things you make yourself an outcast that others rather not engage. I assume that in real life your a nice guy and are not an angry belligerent person, so be so kind to give the same respect to others as you would like to be given. It might be good to just take a week away from MA to let it cool and hopefully you can then see that under the belt attacks are unwanted, unacceptable and simply unnecessary -- OvBacon(Talk) 17:25, June 16, 2011 (UTC) :I don't have a problem with him being blunt. To be honest, he can make personal attacks as well, it doesn't bother me. I just think he's being arrogant and presumptuous when he prevents me from making changes on his own whim. And I don't see why I shouldn't speak out. As an admin, that makes him a bigger expert on Star Trek than me? Ok sure, if you say so. But saying "most fans think this" is not unverifiable. A majority of random respondents from the largest available Star Trek community seemed to agree with me. The TNG characters themselves agree with me. I don't see how one admin's opinion is more valid than both on screen characters and random real life fans. You're an admin too and you have to back up one of your boys, I understand that, and I don't hold anything against you for it. But I don't think I was being angry and belligerent. Did I bust his balls a little? yea probably lol. I'm sorry if it made him cry, but if I was being angry and belligerent, you'd know it. I ain't gonna stoop to that level tho. Clearly after his rant about the Janeway Chakotay war, I did more than enough damage haha Robert DeSoto 05:34, June 25, 2011 (UTC) ::Further comments not having to do with the contents of this article should be discussed elsewhere. OvBacon is not an admin, BTW.--31dot 11:57, June 25, 2011 (UTC) PNAs This article needs a lot of work, if not a complete rewrite. Half of it is a uncited and unformatted essay on Seven of Nine, the other half needs copyediting and links. There's also a few episodes that aren't yet covered, so that information also needs to be added. - 14:07, June 4, 2011 (UTC) :9 years ago, 6 years ago and 1 year ago from 2376 ( ) ::Cool, thanks. Any idea when Icheb was assimilated? Jaf 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Jaf I think pna should be removed since all points have been answer and incorporated in article. Noman 19:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Time travel has a reference to a "Borg temporal transmitter" according to its article. Maybe that should be mentioned near the "time travel was a one-time occurrance for the Borg" speculation? -- Andrew Nagy 21:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Intro Paragraph/Large TOC I would like to see the introductory paragraph expanded before I support this article as being a "Featured Article". Perhaps it would be beneficial to move some of the content from the "Origin" section into the intro? With the "Contents" box so large, it looks goofy as is. Alternatively, should a compact table of contents be created/applied so that users viewing the article can see more of the content "above the fold?" Thoughts? Opposition? -Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa 16:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Alternate timeline This could use a section on the alternate timeline from Endgame where Redge is teaching the class on the Borg and Janeway has a book written about them. Jaf 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Jaf 24th Century Hate to say it, but this entire section needs a complete overhaul. It does not flow with the other sections and is written in a sort of "story-time" fashion. This section is nothing but a bunch of episode summaries. Also, there is a lot of info not relevant to the borg. I'm willing to create an account to contribute, but I'll need help. Any takers? The 2365 section is especially bad. It is written like a story where the narrator shares the context of the borg. For example, starting with the first paragraph, " In 2365, a Borg cube ... detected a starship. ... The strange vessel hailed the Borg ... After the Borg analyzed the information, they knew with whom they were dealing..." the actual parts spanning 3 paragraphs of garbage. The first paragraph doesn't make any sense period. It is cheesy, and doesn't match the rest of the article. I agree with the above and was coming here to say virtually the same thing, the 2365 section does read essentialy as a story, I am hesitant to make changes myself as I do not know how it should be worded but I think it should be more factual 'The Borg encountered their first federation starship' sort of thing, it shouldn't matter if it is a short paragraph.MrSuperHappy (talk) 17:29, February 11, 2016 (UTC) Origin of the Borg? This is quite a creative idea used in the Star Trek Legacy game. It may be non-canon and non-accepted, but does it accurately explain the origins of the Borg? :Probably Not, the borg were listed as having been around in no less than 1400 AD, and judging from how quickly 7 of 9 was identified, it is pretty clear they were assimilating humans long before v'ger was even an idea.--Fullphaser 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC) :: V'Ger crossed space AND time. That explanation was probably what the writers had in mind with the borg for the probable voyager movie. Star Trek legacy was written in colaboration with star trek writers. It hasn't been made canon yet but that's probably the true origin of the borg. We should at least mention it. :::Put it in the apocryphal section then. It'll never be made canon according to MA, since it was a licensed product. -- Sulfur 16:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC) :::This may be a few years old, but it really bears a response: "star trek writers" means almost nothing when each show's had dozens of writers, the books have dozens more and each game has still more. Neither Maurice Hurley, the writer of "Q Who" nor Michael Pillar, the writer of "The Best of Both Worlds," the episodes that created and established the Borg, had anything to do with the game. In fact, its two writers had nothing to do with any other Borg storylines: D.C. Fontana's relationship with the franchise after the first season of TNG is pretty peripheral and Derek Chester's only credits are a handful of other Trek games. Citing them as such a creative authority on the Borg that their word supercedes canon makes no sense, especially when Guinan and the Borg Queen have already given us a canonical, and much less convoluted, explanation. -- 21:12, January 31, 2013 Background I feel kind of bad removing more info (an IP user correctly removed a pointless statement that Endgame was the last chronological appearance of the Borg), but I removed the following: :However, in , Admiral Janeway light-heartedly commented to Captain Picard that he seemed to get all of the easy assignments, such as the Son'a and the Borg. This may imply that the Borg were not entirely defeated, although an alternative interpretation is that Janeway's mention of the Borg was merely a reference to the events of , like her mention of the Son'a from in the same statement. Janeway's statement was very obviously a way of referencing the two past films. I don't think we should offer "interpretations" that are clearly not intended. As such, the note is unnecessary. – Cleanse 02:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC) :Why would she say this anyway? After her long and dangerous journey through the Delta Quadrant, discovering new alien species and battling dangerous enemies, such as the Borg, AND losing various crew members in the process, you would have thought that that would be difficult enough, wouldn't you? Yet she sarcastically implies that Picard and the Enterprise get all of the dangerous assignments. TrekFan 04:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC) ::That has... what to do with the article? Not clear to me, thanks for explaining whether you're in support of removing the note. --TribbleFurSuit 19:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Ambiguous, Roundabout Language The language of this article needs to be rewritten. At times it seems to intentionally be roundabout, which is confusing. There are also many grammar mistakes. Examples: "In 2365, a Borg cube traveling near the System J-25, 7,000 light years away from Federation space, detected a starship. The sixth planet in that system, a Class-M, seemed to have the same characteristics as some Federation and Romulan outposts near the Neutral Zone. Their cities were removed from the planet's surface. When the Borg cube arrived, it scanned the unknown vessel." If I had not already seen the episode, I would not know what is happening. "The strange vessel hailed the Borg but they did not respond to it. Instead, they transported a drone to the engineering section of the unknown starship, right through the vessel's shields. The drone paid no attention to the lifeforms present and walked towards a com panel. Before he could reach it, a phaser shot knocked him down. Moments later another drone was sent and after he materialized, continued towards the panel. Again he was fired upon but this time his personal shield stopped the shot. The Borg had adapted. After the drone extracted information from the com panel, it reached over to the fallen drone and removed some components, after which both drones dematerialized. After the Borg analyzed the information, they knew with whom they were dealing, the Federation starship USS Enterprise-D under the command of Captain Jean-Luc Picard. They also concluded that the Enterprise-D was unable to withstand them, since her defensive capabilities were insufficient. The Borg hailed the Enterprise and told them to not defend themselves as they would be punished for it, interrupting Picard's greeting, and they locked a tractor beam onto the ship. The beam held the starship in place and drained their defensive shields." The writer has become a narrator of some sort here. Why the storytelling? Why especially from the point of view of the Borg? AND... "Despite this warning the Borg found Voyager entering the nebula again and they send three Borg cubes to intercept. Although the Borg fired their weapons, and even tried locking their tractor beam, Voyager kept moving on, unhindered. It seemed they were protected by some sort of new armor." Why not just state that Admiral Janeway had modified Voyager with ablative armor? Removed I removed, :One could speculate that Starfleet, or some of its officers, did not dismiss Cochrane's story in its entirety and that they might be the reason the Science Council investigated it. Some evidence of this might be that the A6 team leader, Drake, told Commander Williams that he owed him a bottle of Scotch. This might suggest a bet of some sort, that Drake would find what they were searching for. as it is a big steaming pile of speculation. -Angry Future Romulan 15:31, May 5, 2010 (UTC) Possible Timeline Deviation? A Possible Timeline Deviation might help explain the inconsistencies between TNG and Voyager. I'm mostly speculating here, but I'd be interesting in hearing some feedback or criticisms of this possibility. I am currently rewatching Voyager and inconsistencies like these really bother me. Original Timeline xxxx: Borg created 2364: Borg attack Romulan outposts in Beta Quadrant. 2365: Enterprise-D encounters Borg (first human/Borg Contact) 2368: Enterprise-D release Hugh to Borg 2368: Hugh infects Borg with individuality 2368: Borg adapt by creating Borg Queen 2368: Borg become semi-incompetent (which explains why Voyager was able to beat Borg so easily compared to Wolf-359) 2373: Borg travel back in time to assimilate Earth New Timeline created 2063: Borg botch assimilation of Earth, leaving Borg tech in Artic 2064: Cochrane gives Princeton speech mentioning Borg 2153: Borg remains found on Earth, Enterprise: “Regeneration: happens 2153: Borg send message back to Borgspace, Borg will become aware of humans in 200 years (around 2353). This is a major change in timeline 2293: Starfleet rescues El-Aurians; begin to associate El-Aurian destruction of homeworld with Archer’s Borg experience; Borg rumors begin 2353: Borg receive message and send ship to Alpha (or Beta) quadrant 2354: Working off rumors, the Hansens seek out the Borg. 2354: Hansens find Borg in Beta Quadrant; they follow them to Delta Quadrant 2356: Borg assimilate Hansens Ramifications This would mean that the TNG timeline is no longer accurate. Picard wasn’t the first Human to see the Borg and Starfleet would have been aware of their existence. This would be consistent with the fact that many other Alpha and Beta Quadrant residents have been assimilated prior to TNG’s first encounter. Also, it might explain why the Ferengi are species 180 when they are an Alpha/Beta Quadrant species. Dejackso 19:41, February 8, 2011 (UTC) :This doesn't match canon. For example, Picard had memories of the Borg Queen from his time being assimilated in "Best of Both Worlds." Hugh was released into the collective after this, so the Queen could not have been created in response to Hugh. It's also a really bad idea to say "Borg become semi-incompetent" that way, it smacks of fanboyism and ignorance of the fact that, in most action and sci fi shows, after enough time has passed a previously unbeatable enemy becomes easy. We saw this elsewhere in Trek, notably in the treatment of the Ferengi after their introduction, or the Dominion. Remember how powerful those little attack ships seemed at first, small numbers able to take out the Defiant or a Galaxy class? Later on a runabout is just about the only thing that can't handle combat against them easily. :In addition, that the Borg would "become aware" of humanity in 2353 isn't all that major a change. We already know they were aware of humanity before Q introduced them directly, they'd already been attacking Federation and Romulan outposts. Why are the events with the El-Aurians only in the new timeline? Guinan was certainly on the show during the events before your stated split. :Basically there isn't an actual REASON to have such a split, and the fact that Picard encountered the Borg Queen while he was assimilated means that your chain of events couldn't have happened this way. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:57, February 8, 2011 (UTC) ::You raise some good points, but I have a couple of comments. First, Picard doesn't remember the Borg Queen until the events of First Contact (the "Best of Both Worlds" memories are mentioned only in that movie) and this is after they had already traveled back in time. I would argue that those memories are from the Picard after the split in the time line. ::Second, I see your point about the "semi-incompetent" statement coming across as fanboyism, but that wasn't my intention as I enjoy all of the ST series. However, I do think that the dramatic decrease in the power of the Borg requires a better explanation than that sci-fi dictates that they become easier. An introduction of a new element (the Queen) could help explain this shift. It could also explain how the Borg originally could gain new tech only through assimilation (which was mentioned in an earlier Voyager episode), yet they all of a sudden began to invent things on their own. I'll admit that my explanation of a late introduction of the Queen only does so shakily, but there does need to be some reason outside of meta concerns. ::Third, I didn't mention the El-Aurians twice mainly because I didn't really see a need to mention them twice. I probably should have put them in both as that element doesn't actually seem to change. I could just have easily left them out to prevent confusion, too. They don't really play a role in my explanation. ::Fourth, I should have said "intensely" aware of humans enough to consider them a threat. Prior to that message, they were attacking Romulan outposts and the occasional Federation ship without any rhyme or reason to the importance of the target. This suggest that the Borg were just doing their normal assimilation routine. The main thing that the message did was that it put a ship in the "backyard" (quote from one of the Hansens) of the Federation where there was no mention of one in the previous timeline. In the original timeline, the Federation had no clue about the Borg at all. Those Romulan outposts were a complete mystery if you remember the episode "The Neutral Zone." It was only after Picard told the Federation about his experience with the Borg, they they got worried and began to think of possible scenarios that led up to Wolf 359. If the Federation was aware of the Borg before Picard in the original timeline, then either they were completely incompetent (they would have had 20 years to plan something considering the Hansen story) or they just didn't care. Dejackso 20:15, February 8, 2011 (UTC) Stardate 9521.6? The article mentions stardate 9521.6. That would be in 2293, during The Undiscovered Country. In what episode is this stardate mentioned in relation to the borg? Is it an error? If not, there's a citation missing right? --Trek history (talk) 07:21, January 2, 2014 (UTC) Origin of Borg, "Destiny" I don't get it.I'm a new member. Why aren't the events of Destiny in here? Do we not discuss the novels? :Novels are not "canon", and Memory Alpha only deals with what happened on screen. You would likely want to check out Memory Beta or Memory Omega for novel-based events. -- sulfur (talk) 15:26, February 16, 2017 (UTC)